Saba Executive Council against expansion of local government

Saba’s Executive Coun­cil has opposed the planned ex­pansion of the island’s governing and legislative bodies in a letter to the Dutch Second Chamber of Parliament on Wednesday, argu­ing that there is now not enough time to “prepare for a structural change of considerable magni­tude”.

The Executive Council’s let­ter comes a day after care­taker Dutch State Secretary of Kingdom Relations Eddie van Marum urged the Second Cham­ber to declare the proposed ex­pansion as non-controversial, which would open a path for the draft legislation to be passed in time for the next election in March 2027.

“If we don’t act now, the islands will remain under-represented for another four years com­pared to Dutch municipalities with a comparable popula­tion,” Van Marum wrote in a briefing to the Second Chamber.

Van Marum had assured Members of Parliament (MPs) that the Executive Councils of Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba did not object to the expansion, but Saba’s letter has now directly contradicted this claim.

On Wednesday, Saba’s Executive Council ac­knowledged that it had not opposed the move during a conference in De Bilt in March 2024, because then there was still three years to get ready for what it described as a “significant and far-reaching institu­tional change”.

According to the Execu­tive Council, the island’s “reluctant agreement” to the expansion was based on a number of other “mu­tual understandings and intentions”, such as the removal of the supervisory position of the Kingdom Representative.

The first draft of the bill had removed the position for the BES islands, but Van Marum’s predecessor, Zsolt Szabo, unilaterally decided last February to amend the draft law to re­tain the post, arguing that there was a need for great­er oversight of local gov­ernment by The Hague. However, the three islands opposed the move, arguing that Szabo had went back on the promise made by his predecessor, Alexandra van Huffelen.

Szabo’s amendment placed serious doubt on whether the bill would pass in time for local elections in March 2027, but now Van Marum wants the Second Chamber to act with urgency.

“Just as Saba reluctantly expressed willingness to consider an expansion of local government, BZK [the Minister of Home Affairs and Kingdom Re­lations — Ed.] expressed willingness to consider the removal of the position,” the Executive Council wrote. “Since then, BZK has unilaterally revised its position… while simulta­neously and systematically advancing the legislative process concerning the expansion of the Island Councils and Executive Councils, without reopen­ing discussions on the broader package that was discussed in De Bilt.”

In addition to time con­straints, the Executive Council argues that The Hague has not allocated enough money to imple­ment the change. It said there was a combined US $300,000 earmarked for the islands, but pointed out that Saba’s government al­ready spends $100,000 a year in rent for office space due to “a persistent lack of available housing for a growing organisation”.

“It is evident that the available implementation budget will be largely insufficient once imple­mentation begins, particu­larly for a small island with limited institutional and financial capacity,” the Ex­ecutive Council wrote.

The Executive Council argued that its opposition to the expansion did not come “out of the blue”. “BZK has long been aware that Saba has consis­tently expressed reserva­tions about increasing the size of local government under the current circum­stances. An expanded local government will not ad­dress the high cost of liv­ing, the lack of affordable and reliable connectivity, or the recurring situation in which schools begin the academic year without sufficient teachers. These remain the most pressing challenges facing Saba.”

The Executive Coun­cil acknowledged that St. Eustatius’ Island Council wanted to increase seats as soon as possible, and lobbied for the bill to be changed to allow St. Eusta­tius’ expansion to go ahead in 2027 while Saba’s would be delayed to 2031.

“Above all, Saba asks to be seen and treated as Saba, rather than solely as part of an undifferenti­ated BES framework,” the Executive Council wrote. “Differentiation in timing does not weaken democra­cy. It strengthens it by en­suring that reforms are in­troduced when institutions are prepared, resources are available, and local pri­orities are not displaced. This approach safeguards governance stability and allows continued focus on the urgent, day-to-day challenges that most di­rectly affect the lives of our residents.”

The Daily Herald.